how "modern" is the Boulez/Chereau ring?
Arthur La Porta
Philips is about to release the Boulez/Chereau production of the Ring
from Bayreuth and I've seen it described as the definitive
"modern" staging of the Ring. What does that mean? Is it set according
to Wagner's direction, or is Wotan now the captain of the Starship
Enterprize? Any information appreciated!
Richard Loeb
at Bayreuth three times from 78-80 and it was a very influential production
for me. It delineated charcter relationships in ways I had never seen in an
operatic production. I did and still do question some of the sets but I was
never bored, frequently fascinated and always intrigued even when I didn't
agree. I have already ordered my copy of the DVD.
"Arthur La Porta" <al...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3BDB5BF5...@cornell.edu...
Jon Bell
I saw it when it was broadcast on PBS shortly after it was staged. The
sets are sort of "late-1800's Gilded Age industrial" style. The
Rheinmaidens cavort on a hydroelectric dam, if I remember correctly. The
other characters usually wear formal attire of the period: black suits,
top hats, etc.
It was my first real exposure to the Ring cycle (as opposed to orchestral
bits and pieces) and I enjoyed it a lot, even though I knew it was far
from a traditional-style production. When the DVDs come out, I'll
probably get them, to complement the more traditional Levine/Met
production that is coming out piecemeal on DG.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Margaret Mikulska
the Walhalla gods were shown as 19th-C capitalists in dark suits and
tall hats and there was a dam on the Rhine. The Rhine Maidens, I think,
were "ladies" of questionable morals parading on the dam. (Or something
close.) The staging featured factories and other such elements of the
"capitalist landscape". It created quite a stir, since in 1970s such
modernized stagings were still rather uncommon.
BTW: Any review, description, etc., that uses the word "definitive" can
be safely discarded or used the way Reger used a critique of one of his
works.
-Margaret
horizon
It's set in the 19th century, and I believe it was a semi-marxist
interpretation. Visually, it's not bad at all. The poster from the PBS
broadcasts graces my living room wall. Musically, it's Boulez doing his
best to deconstruct Wagner, and if I remember correctly, the singers were
problematic as well.
Matt C
Matthew B. Tepper
@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
Wasn't this the one where Hunding had a silent retinue following him around
his home in Act I of _Die Walküre_?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
David7Gable
Chéreau's production is a mixed bag but well worth seeing. Chéreau is
extremely adroit at getting his singers to act naturalistically and many of the
visual images are stunning, but there are also inexplicable gimmicks. Why is
the forest bird represented by a mechanical bird in a cage? Other Chéreau
inventions are more striking and less puzzling: Bru"nnhilde wrapping Siegmund
in a winding sheet during the announcement of death, Wotan swinging a pendulum
that must be the fulcrum of the universe, etc. Wotan is not the captain of the
Starship Enterprise, but he is a nineteenth-century capitalist. Chéreau
essentially sets the Ring during the industrial revolution but is not bound by
any allegiance to a single period setting. He draws on whatever strikes his
fancy. The sets by Richard Peduzzi are often exemplars of what might be called
fascist neoclassicism, like architecture Mussolini might have commissioned.
The main drawback of this Ring remains the singing of Gwyneth Jones. She is at
her absolute worst in the third act of Siegfried and almost tolerable in most
of Walkuere, which requires a lighter and more flexible voice. Since her voice
is in tatters, the long high sustained notes in Siegfried are a real trial.
Boulez is a supreme Wagnerian, his approach fluent and flexible. His
conception is very much French and coloristic. The textures everywhere are
clean and shiny bright, but it's his sensitivity to Wagner's fluid rhythmic
continuity that makes his performance so enviable. The orchestral playing is
virtuosic throughout.
-david gable
David7Gable
>best to deconstruct Wagner
Pray tell, what does this strange locution mean?
-david gable
Christopher Webber
> It delineated charcter relationships in ways I had never seen in an
>operatic production. I did and still do question some of the sets but I was
>never bored, frequently fascinated and always intrigued even when I didn't
>agree.
That hits it. It was the quality and freshness of the characterisations
and the well-directed acting which made it a revelation. This was that
great rarity - opera which actually held together as drama on the small
screen. Any directorial "interpretation" (if there is any) was
subsidiary to imaginative attention to the moment, and to telling detail
of performance. Modern? No, not so old-fashioned as that!
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"
Richard Loeb
Wotan manipulated a mechanical bird which made no sense to me. In Boulez
Siegfreid releases the bird as a symbol of his own (finally) freedom. I
believe the foucault pendulum represented Wotans will. It slowly stops
during Wotans narration as he tell of his loss of grip over events and is
finally pulled down by him. You are so right - a very intriguing production.
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011028125545...@mb-mp.aol.com...
Richard Loeb
connection between the audience and what was happening on stage . The film
is a wonderful souvenir. BTW I know Jones sang poorly some of the time but
the acting Chereau pulled out of her was so effective you kind of forgot the
singing. I spoke to Chereau and some of the singers a few times during the
run - the singers absolutely loved working with him once the initial
explosion and defections (Ridderbusch, who never sang at Bayreuth again
after that) were over.
"Christopher Webber" <mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qrZTMWAO...@nashwan.demon.co.uk...
horizon
It means he's playing down the natural grandeur and majesty of the music,
almost as if he doing a critique of it or trying to repudiate it. It's as
wrongheaded an approach to Wagner as any I've ever heard.
Matt C
Richard Loeb
highlighted certain instrumental lines but too often the forest was lost for
the trees. A long long way from Knappertsbusch and Furtwangler.
"horizon" <mcarn...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PA0D7.13174$XA5.4...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Vincent Lau
news:20011028125545...@mb-mp.aol.com...
>
> The main drawback of this Ring remains the singing of Gwyneth Jones. She
is at
> her absolute worst in the third act of Siegfried and almost tolerable in
most
> of Walkuere, which requires a lighter and more flexible voice. Since her
voice
> is in tatters, the long high sustained notes in Siegfried are a real
trial.
While Dame Gwyneth's vocalism is not everyone's cup of tea, and that there
are indeed flaws here and there, it's unfair and inaccurate to describe her
voice as being "in tatters". It isn't. Frankly, her contribution is one of
the reasons why I treasure this RING so much. Yes, she scoops and swoops in
the last act of SIEGFRIED. Yet, for those who've actually seen the
video/lasar disc/DVD recording of the performance, they can, to some extent,
understand why she produces such sounds, having regard to the movements that
she's making at the relevent moments. Besides, she's meltingly tender in
"Ewig war ich" and she has no fear about those high notes at the end, which
are a little jarringly emitted but not unsteady or wobbly. Her voice
sometimes sounds abrasive in WALKURE (e.g. her outburst just before
Brunnhilde leaves Siegmund at the end of the Annunciation of Death scene)
but, on the whole, she's a girlish and sympathetic Valkyrie. The leaps to
the top Bs and Cs in her war-cry are very nimbly done and she can produce a
trill when required. I must say that she is magnificent in GOTTERDAMMERUNG,
both vocally and dramatically. Putting aside those vocal flaws (I know that
some can't put them aside), Dame Gwyneth is an intelligent singer and a fine
actress - she lives her part with great conviction and is dramatically
thrilling most of the time. On the whole, it is, to me, a portrayal to
treasure.
But it's indeed better to sample this RING on the various visual formats
available rather than on CD, as the vocal flaws (of Jones as well as certain
other singers) can more easily be overlooked in face of such fine stage
production and good acting.
Vincent LAU
David7Gable
Not to my ears. His conducting soars and surges, it's unfailingly supple and
flexible, and the idea that his performance is any more or less a "critique" of
Wagner than any other conductor's is founded on a gross misunderstanding of
what conducting is, Boulez's or anybody else's.
-david gable
David7Gable
Very close to Furtwaengler as to tempi and in a comparable supple flexibility
of rhythmic flow. For the record, when Chereau was immersing himself in the
Ring, he listened to various recordings including Furtwaengler's, which Boulez
by far preferred to other conductors'.
.>but too often the forest was lost for
>the trees.
This strikes me as demonstrably untrue. Which is not to say that you can't
hear more at times in Boulez's realization than in some other conductors'.
What is actually unidiomatic about Boulez's approach has nothing to do with
Boulez being a monster, a machine, "analytical," or cold. It has to do with
his being French and is reflected in the actual weight and transparency of the
orchestral sound that Boulez draws from an orchestra. You will find much
thicker "beefier" sonorities when a Furtwaengler or Knapperstsbusch or for that
matter a Bernstein conducts Wagner. Boulez is all transparency and light,
comparatively speaking.
Boulez's own compositional idiom is a specifically post-Wagnerian idiom in a
couple of specific relevant senses--relevant to his conducting of Wagner, that
is. Wagner pioneered the seamless surface continuum and long line constantly
subject to subtle adjustments of tempo that are also Boulez's stock in trade as
a composer.
-david gable
Stephen W. Worth
<mcarn...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> It means he's playing down the natural grandeur and majesty of the music,
> almost as if he doing a critique of it or trying to repudiate it. It's as
> wrongheaded an approach to Wagner as any I've ever heard.
That was what I expected from Boulez, but I was pleasantly surprised
at the emotional whallop he produced. His speeds are faster than some,
but I don't think he was that far off the mark at all.
See ya
Steve
High Quality CDs of Classic Historical Recordings
VIP Records: http://www.vintageip.com/records/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Spumco Cartoons: http://www.spumco.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vintage Ink & Paint Animation Art
http://www.vintageip.com
Stephen W. Worth
> I saw it when it was broadcast on PBS shortly after it was staged. The
> sets are sort of "late-1800's Gilded Age industrial" style. The
> Rheinmaidens cavort on a hydroelectric dam, if I remember correctly. The
> other characters usually wear formal attire of the period: black suits,
> top hats, etc.
Who wore a top hat? Gunther?
Matthew B. Tepper
news:bigshot-2810...@206.225.65.162:
> In article <GLwGn...@presby.edu>, jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
>
>> I saw it when it was broadcast on PBS shortly after it was staged.
>> The sets are sort of "late-1800's Gilded Age industrial" style. The
>> Rheinmaidens cavort on a hydroelectric dam, if I remember correctly.
>> The other characters usually wear formal attire of the period: black
>> suits, top hats, etc.
>
> Who wore a top hat? Gunther?
Nothing really new -- in an early 1970s San Francisco _Der Fliegende
Holländer_, Daland wore a top hat.
horizon
Yet another self-proclaimed usenet expert who knows what something is or
isn't. Spare me the lecture.
David7Gable
>isn't. Spare me the lecture.
>
Spare me drivel like such words as "deconstruction" used to describe Boulez's
conducting or anyone else's. Or even less high falutin' versions of this
nonsense like "he's doing a critique" in conducting. The very possibility of
such a thing will disappear before your eyes if you examine it for a moment.
-david gable
David7Gable
More or less in the same ballpark as Furtwaengler's.
-david gable
Simon Roberts
"Deconstruct(s)" seems to have replaced such words and phrases as
"interpret", "interpret differently", "has interesting ideas about", "has
unconventional ideas about", etc. Of course, they don't sound as good....
Simon
Stephen W. Worth
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
> > His [Boulez's] speeds are faster than some,
>
> More or less in the same ballpark as Furtwaengler's.
I've heard some very early acoustic recordings of Wagner
where the tempo is quite fast. Was that the style, or is
it a function of the time limitations of 78s?
David7Gable
>where the tempo is quite fast. Was that the style, or is
>it a function of the time limitations of 78s?
Timings for Wagner performances at Bayreuth were meticulously recorded in
Cosima's day (and still are, I believe), and the tempi were faster. The tempi
of Furtwaengler and Boulez are about as fast as Bayreuth performances in
Wagner's lifetime.
-david gable
horizon
First off, your arrogance is astounding. I originally responded to another
poster who asked a question about the Chereau production. I didn't attack
your obviously more favorable opinion about Boulez's Wagner -- but you chose
to attack mine. It is good to know that Taliban-like "thought police" like
yourself are on patrol on Usenet. Perhaps, however, you should spend more
time focusing on your obvious inability to engage in civil discussion when
approaching others who do not share your hallowed opinions.
Secondly, the entire Chereau Ring was an intensely "political" affair, as
perhaps is appropriate with a work as innately political (and historically
controversial) as Wagner's Ring -- and Boulez's selection as the conductor
was no accident. I was not the person to first use the term deconstruction
in reference to this production, and I'm sure I was not the first to apply
it to Boulez's conducting of the operas. This was perhaps the most
controversial production of Wagner's Ring in my lifetime (b. 1955), and the
more traditional Solti-David Hall production that succeeded it was meant as
an antidote to the firestorm that Chereau/Boulez started. Personally, I
have no problem with Chereau, but I simply don't buy Boulez's musical view
of Wagner -- either here, or in the Parsifal that Andrew Porter took pains
in a New Yorker review to describe as an object lesson on how playing Wagner
too fast simply doesn't work. I saw the broadcasts/videos of the centennial
production many times, and Boulez's conducting simply did not work for me.
More to the point, Boulez was IMHO clearly not in sympathy with the
emotional core of the work, hence the use of the word critique -- since the
conducting very much underplays the same kind of moments that someone who
clearly "loves" Wagner, like Reginald Goodall, tends to emphasize. When I
hear Boulez's Wagner, I hear a brilliant musician who is responding via his
intellect to important music, but is obviously uncomfortable with the
emotional content of the music (a tendency, by the way, that is all too
present in much of his other work in the romantic repertoire, including his
Mahler -- and which IMHO leads to fascinating, but emotionally uninvolving,
musicmaking). When I hear Goodall, I hear a conductor who is responding
with both mind and heart to the same music. In life, you pay money and you
make your choice. But, returning to my initial use of the word critique, it
specifically applies here because Boulez is IMHO not adequately responding
to the "heart" implicit in Wagner's score -- and is, in fact, running away
from it, or is perhaps embarrassed by it, and hence, in a practical sense,
trying to repudiate it (specifically in comparison to an established
tradition as represented by Furtwangler, Goodall, Solti, Knappertsbusch,
Karajan, etc.) -- and perhaps the rise of German fascism that is said to
been nurtured by it (and I'm not touching that issue with a ten foot poll).
By downplaying the big climaxes (which I suspect Wagner thought quite
important), he is also obviously attempting to deconstruct the mythos
surrounding Siegfried, Wotan, Brunhilde, Vahalla (which Chereau was also
doing visually in the physical production) for whatever reasons he might
have (be they political, cultural or emotional).
There may be composers that need a conductor to fix them. And there have
certainly been cases in my experience where I have enjoyed a controversial
approach to a work. That is not the case here. Wagner does not (at least
in my opinion) need Boulez to do something dramatically different to make a
case for the music. As a point of comparison, many people object to John
Eliot Gardiner's controversial performance of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. I
love it. Of course, while Gardiner is clearly ruffling feathers by seeing
Beethoven through the eyes of Monteverdi, he is not IMHO running away from
the emotional core of Beethoven's composition -- as I perceive Boulez as
doing in this Ring, and elsewhere in his recorded repertoire. But, in the
end, the proof is in the hearing -- and, of course, a matter of individual
taste.
I would encourage anyone interested in this Centennial Ring to read some of
the literature devoted to it, and understand the controversy that surrounded
it. The problem for me with the Chereau Ring is that I'd rather watch it
than listen to it. Perhaps my best advice to prospective buyers would be,
to paraphrase the advice Victorian mothers were purported to give their
daughters on their wedding night, to sit back and think of Solti.
As for you, Mr. Gables, you've earned a place in my killfile. I do not
expect everyone to agree with me, and I am willing to listen to other
opinions, and not personally attack those that clearly represent a different
esthetic. But I have absolutely no patience for prima donnas like yourself.
Do take my parting from you in the same spirit that Wotan parted from
Hunding.
Matt C
Roland Kayser
> Timings for Wagner performances at Bayreuth were meticulously recorded
> in Cosima's day (and still are, I believe), and the tempi were faster.
> The tempi of Furtwaengler and Boulez are about as fast as Bayreuth
> performances in Wagner's lifetime.
I think both statements can be questioned.
I don't think Boulez returned to "the old tempi". Afaik it's a
legend that Boulez himself created. I remember for instance he
claimed his tempi for Parsifal were approximately the same as Levi's.
And I don't think Furtwaengler's and Boulez' tempi are about the same.
I looked up some of the recorded times for Parsifal from
Bayreuth-performances:
Levi 1882:
I 1/47
II 1/02
III 1/15
Fischer 1882:
I 1/50
II 1/10
III 1/23
Boulez 1966:
I 1/38
II 1/01
III 1/10
Boulez 1967:
I 1/35
II 0/58
III 1/05
Boulez 1970:
I 1/34
II 0/59
III 1/06
which is more or less like the CD-set (as it should).
Boulez is faster than Levi, still more than Fischer.
On the other hand Furtwaengler 1936:
I 1/52
II 1/03
III 1/17
Furtwaengler is certainly slower than Boulez.
The only part of the Ring, where I can compare Boulez and Furtwaengler
is Rheingold:
Richter 1876: 2/31 and 2/29
Furtwaengler 1953: 2/35
Boulez 1980: 2/22
Hearing the CDs too gives me the impression that Furtwaengler is slower
than Boulez on the whole.
Of course that doesn't mean that Furtwaengler is a better conductor
than Boulez or vice versa. But their different approach to Wagner's
music can be seen in their tempi. I want to underline that I enjoy
Boulez' conducting of Wagner just as much as Furtwaengler's; though
seldom on the same day ;-) . That I own only Rheingold from Boulez'
Ring is rather a matter of the vocal soloist than the conductor.
Roland
alp
> hear more at times in Boulez's realization than in some other conductors'.
> What is actually unidiomatic about Boulez's approach has nothing to do with
> Boulez being a monster, a machine, "analytical," or cold. It has to do with
> his being French and is reflected in the actual weight and transparency of the
> orchestral sound that Boulez draws from an orchestra. You will find much
> thicker "beefier" sonorities when a Furtwaengler or Knapperstsbusch or for that
> matter a Bernstein conducts Wagner. Boulez is all transparency and light,
> comparatively speaking.
>
Boulez' textures. I have his recording of Schoenberg's Pelleas und
Melisande with the CSO (on Erato) which has this characteristic. The
music itself is very rich and heavily orchestrated, but Boulez greats
a thrillingly transparent texture which seems to allow you to see into
the music with x-ray vision without loosing the grandeur and sweep of
it.
alp
> Philips is about to release the Boulez/Chereau production of the Ring
> from Bayreuth and I've seen it described as the definitive
> "modern" staging of the Ring. What does that mean? Is it set according
> Enterprize? Any information appreciated!
Thanks for everyone's feedback. I would probably be more comforable
with a more traditional staging, but I think I will go for it anyway.
Stephen W. Worth
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
> Timings for Wagner performances at Bayreuth were meticulously recorded in
> Cosima's day (and still are, I believe), and the tempi were faster. The tempi
> of Furtwaengler and Boulez are about as fast as Bayreuth performances in
> Wagner's lifetime.
Thanks... That was what I suspected.
samir golescu
David G.:
>Timings for Wagner performances at Bayreuth were meticulously recorded in
>Cosima's day (and still are, I believe), and the tempi were faster. The tempi
>of Furtwaengler and Boulez are about as fast as Bayreuth performances in
>Wagner's lifetime.
Reportedly Toscanini's Parsifal was, at the time at least, the slowest,
while Richard Strauss' was much faster and Furtwangler's even faster.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20011030084259...@mb-cn.aol.com:
But there were very few performances at Bayreuth in Wagner's lifetime. The
slower tempi began to creep in after his death, and the coterie revolving
around Cosima which included Muck and Richter (I think) were responsible
for it. Weingartner is pretty pointed about this in his autobiography.
Stephen W. Worth
<mcarn...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> This was perhaps the most controversial
> production of Wagner's Ring in my lifetime (b. 1955)
Not by a long shot... The Goodall English Ring from the early
seventies had controversial settings, (remember what the critics
had to say about Brunnhilde carrying the globe around like a
beach ball?) and there was a staging in France that was set
in outer space!
> I simply don't buy Boulez's musical view
> of Wagner -- either here, or in the Parsifal
I agree that Boulez and Parsifal is a case of miscasting.
> More to the point, Boulez was IMHO clearly not in sympathy with the
> emotional core of the work
That I don't see at all... I thought Boulez's first act of
Walkure was excellent, hitting all the right emotions. The
acting throughout the Ring was great too. I thought that
Boulez was well served by the acting and vice versa. That
doesn't always happen when the staging breaks from tradition
like this.
> since the conducting very much underplays the same kind of
> moments that someone who clearly "loves" Wagner, like Reginald
> Goodall, tends to emphasize.
I like Goodall too, even though his speeds are the polar
opposite to Boulez. I liked Boulez's handling of Rheingold
a lot better than Goodall though.
> But, returning to my initial use of the word critique, it
> specifically applies here because Boulez is IMHO not adequately
> responding to the "heart" implicit in Wagner's score -- and is,
> in fact, running away from it, or is perhaps embarrassed by it,
> and hence, in a practical sense, trying to repudiate it
That is speculation on your part. The essays by Boulez in
the book that accompanied the original LP release of his
Ring don't bear that out.
> Perhaps my best advice to prospective buyers would be,
> to paraphrase the advice Victorian mothers were purported to
> give their daughters on their wedding night, to sit back and
> think of Solti.
To be honest, I don't listen to Solti's Ring much any more.
I much prefer live versions, warts and all. I'd guess I'd
rather listen to an interpretation that highlights some
unique aspect of the Ring than one that tries to be
"definitive".
Stephen W. Worth
wrote:
> For Parsifal, at least, not true...
I would imagine that Parsifal is going to have the widest
spread of tempi no matter what time period. Of all the
Wagner operas, it's a special case.
D Krause
news:142ea3ba.01103...@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for everyone's feedback. I would probably be more comforable
> with a more traditional staging, but I think I will go for it anyway.
Your decision to make, of course; however, from BAYREUTH: A HISTORY OF THE
WAGNER FESTIVAL by Frederic Spotts, Yale University Press, 1994:
"While relations between the [Bayreuth] orchestra and its conductors are
veiled behind mutual discretion, respect is not surprisingly identified as
the key to the relationship. Toscanini lost some of the orchestra's
confidence in 1931 by walking out of a rehearsal ... Far worse is inadequate
professional skill, and in Bayreuth the standards are of the highest. 'A
Bayreuth musician can tolerate just about anything in a conductor,' said one
of them, 'but what he cannot accept is his not understanding the score, and
that is occasionally the case.' The worst row in Bayreuth's history broke
out over this issue when Pierre Boulez conducted a new production of the
Ring in 1976. In the opinion of most of the musicians, Boulez had neither
mastered the score nor had any feeling for it. His interpretation, which
among other things was deemed to have suppressed the leitmotifs, incited an
open revolt by nearly three-quarters of the orchestra. The players even
disavowed him publicly by refusing to appear with him on stage at the
conclusion of the premiere performance ... The following year at least a
third of the musicians did not return ..."
Happy listening.
David7Gable
>. 'A
>Bayreuth musician can tolerate just about anything in a conductor,' said one
>of them, 'but what he cannot accept is his not understanding the score, and
>that is occasionally the case.' The worst row in Bayreuth's history broke
>out over this issue when Pierre Boulez conducted a new production of the
>Ring in 1976. In the opinion of most of the musicians, Boulez had neither
>mastered the score nor had any feeling for it.
This is a decidedly one-sided account of what actually happened and one very
short on specifics, and the musicians who played in the remaining three years
of the Ring had quite another attitude toward Boulez. In each case, the
specific arguments between the musicians and Boulez during the first year of
the centennial Ring involved passages in which Boulez refused to allow the
orchestra to blast out passages marked piano in the score as they were
accustomed to doing. There was also considerable resentment that a French team
had been brought in to do the centennial Ring. Even this happened almost
accidentally. Boulez's first choice as director would have been Wieland
Wagner, but Wieland was dead. Ingmar Bergman was approached but declined,
saying that Wagner was the thing he hated most in the world. Peter Stein was
approached but wanted to direct a heavily cut Ring in two evenings (!!!!!!!).
Chéreau, whom Boulez does indeed admire as a director, was approached next.
The notion that Boulez, the consummate professional, showed up at Bayreuth to
conduct a new production of the Ring unprepared is not only preposterous but
slanderous. What those musicians who dissented from his approach the first
year meant by "not knowing the score" or "not having any feeling for it" is
"not seeing it my way."
-david gable
D Krause
news:20011104103813...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> >. 'A
> >Bayreuth musician can tolerate just about anything in a conductor,' said
one
> >of them, 'but what he cannot accept is his not understanding the score,
and
> >that is occasionally the case.' The worst row in Bayreuth's history
broke
> >out over this issue when Pierre Boulez conducted a new production of the
> >Ring in 1976. In the opinion of most of the musicians, Boulez had
neither
> >mastered the score nor had any feeling for it.
>
> This is a decidedly one-sided account of what actually happened and one
very
> short on specifics, and the musicians who played in the remaining three
years
> of the Ring had quite another attitude toward Boulez. In each case, the
> specific arguments between the musicians and Boulez during the first year
of
> the centennial Ring involved passages in which Boulez refused to allow the
> orchestra to blast out passages marked piano in the score as they were
> accustomed to doing.
Your source for this statement? As long as we're talking specifics, that
is.
> There was also considerable resentment that a French team
> had been brought in to do the centennial Ring. Even this happened almost
> accidentally. Boulez's first choice as director would have been Wieland
> Wagner, but Wieland was dead. Ingmar Bergman was approached but declined,
> saying that Wagner was the thing he hated most in the world. Peter Stein
was
> approached but wanted to direct a heavily cut Ring in two evenings
(!!!!!!!).
> Chéreau, whom Boulez does indeed admire as a director, was approached
next.
This is all discussed in Spotts' book -- but it has nothing to do with the
Bayreuth orchestra's opinion of Boulez's conducting.
> The notion that Boulez, the consummate professional, showed up at Bayreuth
to
> conduct a new production of the Ring unprepared is not only preposterous
but
> slanderous. What those musicians who dissented from his approach the firs
t
> year meant by "not knowing the score" or "not having any feeling for it"
is
> "not seeing it my way."
God forbid facts should get in the way of a self-professed "Boulez freak" --
but as Spotts points out, the Bayreuth orchestra was hardly alone in its
assessment of Boulez's interpretation: "No less of a storm raged over the
conducting, which Boulez frankly intended to be as heterodox as the staging.
Some no doubt disliked his interpretation because of the production, but
even some who liked what they saw were shocked by what they heard. A good
many critics agreed with a majority of the orchestra members that Boulez had
not mastered the score. They complained that he attenuated the score's
grandeur and produced a reading that was, despite some gorgeous moments,
bloodless. 'Like Chereau on the stage,' wrote the Observer, 'he presents a
partial and small-scale view of the work as a whole.'' To Spotts' credit
(but then Spotts has to come up to the editorial standards of a respected
academic press such as the Yale University Press, which Boulez freaks such
as David Gable apparently do not), Spotts in fact goes on to present an
even-handed account of the critical reaction to Boulez's ring: "At the same
time, Boulez was praised for achieving exceptionally fine-grained and
translucent textures,' as well as 'a lyrical tenderness that is new in his
conducting.' Such was also the view of Le Monde, which credited him with
having 'achieved a perfection of detail, a transparency, a finesse and an
exceptional equilibrium' -- the traits for which Boulez was celebrated."
One can naturally expect "Boulez freaks" to perceive enemies every time
someone points out facts which indicate that there is not universal acclaim
for their idol and his works. But for David Gable to hysterically clack
about "slander" and a demonstrably even-handed account somehow being
"one-sided," merely because it also presents well-informed opinions with
which he disagrees, comes close to being that of which he accuses others.
De gustibus non disputandum est, David -- but the original poster, who
indicated that he was interested in acquiring a "more traditional"
presentation of the Ring, might want to take into account the opinions of
the Bayreuth orchestra -- who are no slouches in this matter -- as to
whether this particular version constitutes Boulez's Wagner (however worthy
"Boulez freaks" might consider that to be) or Wagner's Wagner.
Happy listening.
Arthur La Porta
Mr Krause,
I must admit that you have pushed me over the top and convinced me that I
absolutely MUST have this Boulez ring. I'm no Boulez freak (I think I have
maybe half a dozen of his records) but I have been very impressed with the way
he can bring transparency and fluidity to the densest, most syrupy scores
(Schoenberg's Peleas un Melisande, for example). This bit about him not
mastering the score is wonderful! It seems to me that a conductor who didn't
know the score would beat time and nod approvingly. He must have known what he
was doing to stir up such ire in the faithful!
best regards
a.
D Krause wrote:
> David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011104103813...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>
>
>
Arthur La Porta
> David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011104103813...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>
> They complained that he attenuated the score's
> grandeur and produced a reading that was, despite some gorgeous moments,
> bloodless.
The score has too much damn "grandeur" if you ask me.
D Krause
> I must admit that you have pushed me over the top and convinced me that I
> absolutely MUST have this Boulez ring.
Your money, your choice; if you enjoy it, I'm happy for you.
> I'm no Boulez freak (I think I have
> maybe half a dozen of his records) but I have been very impressed with the
way
> he can bring transparency and fluidity to the densest, most syrupy scores
> (Schoenberg's Peleas un Melisande, for example).
If by "transparency," you mean the ability to bring out more detail in a
meaningful way, consider some testimony from William Youngren, who is one of
Fanfare magazine's Wagner experts. Youngren can hardly be considered an
anti-Boulezian; in fact, Youngren considers "Boulez [to be] the greatest
Wagner conductor of our time, second only to Toscanini." Youngren's review
of the CD release of Boulez's Ring shows that he is and was intimately
familiar with the recording, even back in its LP days. Given that personal
background, you might find the following from Youngren's review of Levine's
SIEGFRIED on DGG: "Let me give you one brief example of how Levine (and
DGG's [recording] engineers) enable you to hear just about everything in the
score. Just before Mime's self-delighted question 'Behalt' ich Zwerg auch
zweitens mein Haupt?" Wagner has the violas swoop upward to an A-flat above
the treble clef staff and then play a descending eighth-note passage in
unison with the two oboes and with English horn and bassoons an octave
beneath. I had _never_ [my emphasis] even noticed this passage before, but
this time I did because the special (and appropriately whiny) timbre of the
violas _stood out so clearly_ [again, my emphasis] -- even though there is
an accompaniment of pizzicato violins and pulsing horns." This from an
avowed Boulez enthusiast, in exactly this repertoire. So who achieves
"transparency"?
I bring these comments to your attention, because if in fact you value
"transparency" in dense scores, you might in fact enjoy other conductors'
Ring recordings more than that of Boulez. Simple as that. I would
recommend both Levine's and Haitink's Ring recordings, in that regard.
> This bit about him not
> mastering the score is wonderful! It seems to me that a conductor who
didn't
> know the score would beat time and nod approvingly.
Some would, some wouldn't. Meanwhile, we have the Bayreuth orchestra's
assessment of Boulez's "mastery." They were there; that's the difference
between them and me and you.
> He must have known what he
> was doing to stir up such ire in the faithful!
Not at all. You really should take a look at Frederic Spotts' book; it has
plenty of accounts of conductors and artistic directors who "stirred up ire
in the faithful" at Bayreuth; but the only one where there's an indication
that the orchestra felt that the conductor hadn't mastered the score is in
the case of Boulez.
Happy listening.
David7Gable
>recommend both Levine's and Haitink's Ring recordings, in that regard.
Levine is one of the dullest Wagnerians imaginable, Haitink scarcely more
animated.
> This[Youngren on Levine in a passage from Siegfried] from an
>avowed Boulez enthusiast, in exactly this repertoire. So who achieves
>"transparency"?
Although you would like to read Youngren's praise of the transparency Levine
and his engineers achieve as disparagement of Boulez or as a denial that Boulez
is capable of "transparency," it is nothing of the kind. And you want us to
accept Youngren when he praises Levine but not when he praises Boulez.
> Meanwhile, we have the Bayreuth orchestra's
>assessment of Boulez's "mastery."
We have nothing of the kind. We have anonymous quotations from some
disgruntled members of the Bayreuth orchestra from the summer of 1976. Spotts'
book is not the only account of what happened that year. More ample accounts
are available in several books on the Boulez-Chereau Ring. They differ in
giving both sides of the story.
-david gable
D Krause
> Levine is one of the dullest Wagnerians imaginable, Haitink scarcely more
> animated.
I would hardly expect a different opinion from a self-professed "Boulez
freak." Interestingly, though, someone like William Youngren, who considers
Boulez to be the finest Wagner conductor of our time, also has high praise
for Levine's Wagner -- but then, that's one of the differences between
Youngren, who's capable of giving a balanced and thoughtful assessment, and
David Gable. But then, to review for Fanfare one has to have qualifications
and expertise similar to that which Henry Fogel possesses -- which I suppose
is why Fogel's and Youngren's bylines appear in Fanfare, but not David
Gable's.
> Although you would like to read Youngren's praise of the transparency
Levine
> and his engineers achieve as disparagement of Boulez or as a denial that
Boulez
> is capable of "transparency," it is nothing of the kind. And you want us
to
> accept Youngren when he praises Levine but not when he praises Boulez.
Whatever is transparent, it's not certainly not the crystal ball you're
using to divine my intentions in providing those quotes from Youngren.
"Transparency" is relative, as Youngren indicates; he also indicates that,
in his opinion, Levine's Ring recording achieves it to a greater degree than
does Boulez's recording. And as I said, this from someone who esteems
Boulez as a Wagnerian quite highly. So your snarling assessment of what I
want you to accept or not accept makes no sense; the significance of
Youngren's praise for the "transparency" of Levine's Ring recording is
precisely because Youngren does admire Boulez's Wagner, which is why I
pointed out that Youngren does so. When did I ask anyone to accept or not
accept Youngren's assessment of Boulez?
> > Meanwhile, we have the Bayreuth orchestra's
> >assessment of Boulez's "mastery."
>
> We have nothing of the kind. We have anonymous quotations from some
> disgruntled members of the Bayreuth orchestra from the summer of 1976.
Which appear in a book that met the editorial review standards of the Yale
University Press. Which appear in a book that won the Royal Philharmonic
Society Award for the best music book of 1994. Which appear in a book that
Edward Rothstein described in the New York Times as "a readable,
authoritative account of the Wagner festival." Which appear in a book that
Michael Tanner described in the New York Times Book Review as "reliable a
guide [to Bayreuth] as we shall ever have." If you are charging that Spotts
fabricated his evidence, or that in some way it misrepresents the Bayreuth
orchestra's assessment of Boulez, I'm sure that I and others would like to
see your evidence for that.
> Spotts'
> book is not the only account of what happened that year. More ample
accounts
> are available in several books on the Boulez-Chereau Ring. They differ in
> giving both sides of the story.
Feel free to quote from them, as I have with Spotts' book. Or are we simply
supposed to take the assurance of a self-professed "Boulez freak" that those
accounts refute the one that Spotts provides? Frankly, your continued
depiction of Spotts as somehow being biased or having given a "one-sided"
(your word) account is reprehensible, given that I've already provided a
quote showing that Spotts went to some effort to quote the positive reviews
that Boulez's Ring received, as well as the negative ones that supported the
orchestra's assessment.
Happy listening.
Arthur La Porta
> Arthur La Porta <al...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:3BE593C1...@cornell.edu...
>
>
> If by "transparency," you mean the ability to bring out more detail in a
> meaningful way, consider some testimony from William Youngren, who is one of
> Fanfare magazine's Wagner experts. Youngren can hardly be considered an
> anti-Boulezian; in fact, Youngren considers "Boulez [to be] the greatest
> Wagner conductor of our time, second only to Toscanini." Youngren's review
> of the CD release of Boulez's Ring shows that he is and was intimately
> familiar with the recording, even back in its LP days. Given that personal
> background, you might find the following from Youngren's review of Levine's
> SIEGFRIED on DGG: "Let me give you one brief example of how Levine (and
> DGG's [recording] engineers) enable you to hear just about everything in the
> score. Just before Mime's self-delighted question 'Behalt' ich Zwerg auch
> zweitens mein Haupt?" Wagner has the violas swoop upward to an A-flat above
> the treble clef staff and then play a descending eighth-note passage in
> unison with the two oboes and with English horn and bassoons an octave
> beneath. I had _never_ [my emphasis] even noticed this passage before, but
> this time I did because the special (and appropriately whiny) timbre of the
> violas _stood out so clearly_ [again, my emphasis] -- even though there is
> an accompaniment of pizzicato violins and pulsing horns." This from an
> avowed Boulez enthusiast, in exactly this repertoire. So who achieves
> "transparency"?
>
Knowing the DG engineers of that era, I might consider it evidence of
"gain-riding" rather than "transparency." I am interested in hearing Boulez's
recording just because I have enjoyed other recordings he has made. And even
if you can mathematically prove that Levine's is better, I've heard it (parts
anyway) and it didn't do anything for me.
>
> I bring these comments to your attention, because if in fact you value
> "transparency" in dense scores, you might in fact enjoy other conductors'
> Ring recordings more than that of Boulez. Simple as that. I would
> recommend both Levine's and Haitink's Ring recordings, in that regard.
>
I have Haitink, it's ok. I have heard parts of Levine and thought it was
rather dull and lacking in character. I still like Karajan best, with Solti
and Bohm close behind.
>
> > He must have known what he
> > was doing to stir up such ire in the faithful!
>
> Not at all. You really should take a look at Frederic Spotts' book; it has
> plenty of accounts of conductors and artistic directors who "stirred up ire
> in the faithful" at Bayreuth; but the only one where there's an indication
> that the orchestra felt that the conductor hadn't mastered the score is in
> the case of Boulez.
I have trouble enough finding time to listen to the opera, let alone read books
about it.
D Krause
> Knowing the DG engineers of that era, I might consider it evidence of
> "gain-riding" rather than "transparency."
It doesn't sound like gain-riding to me; nor apparently did it sound that
way to William Youngren.
> I am interested in hearing Boulez's
> recording just because I have enjoyed other recordings he has made. And
even
> if you can mathematically prove that Levine's is better, I've heard it
(parts
> anyway) and it didn't do anything for me.
Frankly, I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you; de gustibus non
disputandum est. You asked for opinions regarding the Boulez/Chereau Ring;
I generously provided some information that I believe is relevant in that
regard; do as you wish with it. It's no concern of mine.
> I have trouble enough finding time to listen to the opera, let alone read
books
> about it.
All right. But then you'll have to take it on faith as to whether raising
the ire of the Bayreuth faithful was a singular accomplishment of Boulez and
Chereau or not.
Happy listening.
Arthur La Porta
> Arthur La Porta <al...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:3BE60822...@cornell.edu...
>
>
> Frankly, I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you; de gustibus non
> disputandum est. You asked for opinions regarding the Boulez/Chereau Ring;
> I generously provided some information that I believe is relevant in that
> regard; do as you wish with it. It's no concern of mine.
>
I appreciate the information, the huffing and puffing, not so much. ;-)
>
> > I have trouble enough finding time to listen to the opera, let alone read
> books
> > about it.
>
> All right. But then you'll have to take it on faith as to whether raising
> the ire of the Bayreuth faithful was a singular accomplishment of Boulez and
> Chereau or not.
>
I don't plan to take anything on faith. I plan to listen to the recording, ire
of the Bayreuth faithful notwithstanding. It may suck. That's why we have
ebay.
David7Gable
> that's one of the differences between
>Youngren, who's capable of giving a balanced and thoughtful assessment, and
>David Gable.
Mr. Krause's notion of balanced is certainly not mine. He quotes a one-sided
appraisal by unnamed musicians, members of the Bayreuth orchestra in the summer
of 1976, and attributes them to the orchestra as a whole as if it were a
monolithic entity. Then he quotes remarks of Mr. Youngren's in praise of
Levine as if they constituted criticism of Boulez. They do not. Boulez is not
even mentioned. They do reveal that Youngren admires the transparency Levine
attains. Nothing more. In that sense, they are not relevant to the issue of
Boulez's Ring performance, which is the subject of this thread.
>I would hardly expect a different opinion from a self-professed "Boulez
>freak."
While I am indeed a self-professed "Boulez freak," I am not a blind idolater.
For scathing indictments of numerous Boulez performances, search under my name
at dejanews.
As for Spotts' book, which I do not know, it is not an account of the
Boulez/Chereau Ring, which means that he is under no obligation to exhaust this
subject thoroughly. And he certainly does not, not in comparison to the many
others who have spilt ink on this topic. Unless you've omitted further details
that Spotts includes, he apparently does not mention specific details, and he
does indeed atttribute remarks to the Bayreuth orchestra as if it were a single
entity rather than an assemblage of individuals. Whether or not it received
favorable reviews does not constitute a refutation of these facts.
>But then, to review for Fanfare one has to have qualifications
>and expertise similar to that which Henry Fogel possesses -- which I suppose
>is why Fogel's and Youngren's bylines appear in Fanfare, but not David
>Gable's.
I take it we should ignore your opinions, then, since they were not published
in Fanfare.
-david gable
D Krause
> Mr. Krause's notion of balanced is certainly not mine. He quotes a
> one-sided
> appraisal by unnamed musicians, members of the Bayreuth orchestra in the
> summer
> of 1976, and attributes them to the orchestra as a whole as if it were a
> monolithic entity.
I did not, and neither did Frederic Spotts so attribute them. As I had
previously quoted from Spotts: "In the opinion of _most_ of the musicians
[my emphasis], Boulez had neither mastered the score nor had any feeling for
it." Where in that statement is the orchestra described as "a monolithic
entity," as David Gable charges? Would it be too much trouble for David
Gable to respond to the actual statements made by myself or Frederic Spotts,
rather than to those that he either mistakely believes or prevaricatingly
maintains that either myself or Spotts made?
> Then he quotes remarks of Mr. Youngren's in praise of
> Levine as if they constituted criticism of Boulez. They do not.
And I did not so quote them for that purpose. I quoted William Youngren's
remarks in order to show that on the specific issue of "transparency," even
a reviewer who regards Boulez as the greatest Wagner conductor of our time,
and who is demonstrably familiar with Boulez's recording of the Ring, can
hear details in another conductor's Ring recording that he "never"
(Youngren's word) heard before, which obviously means that he didn't hear
those details in Boulez's recording, since his knowledge of Boulez's
recording predates his knowledge of Levine's recording. As much as the
fair-minded Mr. Youngren admires Levine's Ring, he apparently admires
Boulez's even more, but not on the sole basis of "transparency."
Would it be too much trouble for David Gable to limit his remarks to the
actual issue raised, rather than erecting a straw man to heroically struggle
against?
> Boulez is not
> even mentioned.
He doesn't need to be specifically named, when a universal indicator such as
"never" is used.
> They do reveal that Youngren admires the transparency
> Levine
> attains. Nothing more.
Demonstrably not so. Youngren specifically indicates that he had _never_
heard those particular details before on a Ring recording; he was
demonstrably familiar with Boulez's Ring recording before he heard Levine's;
by a simple application of logic, we can derive from those premises the
conclusion that Youngren did not hear those details on Boulez's Ring
recording. Even a self-professed "Boulez freak" should be able to follow
that.
> In that sense, they are not relevant to the issue
> of
> Boulez's Ring performance, which is the subject of this thread.
Demonstrably not so. The original poster indicated that "transparency" is
something he values in a recording; I provided Youngren's comments simply as
an indication that he might enjoy Levine's recording, on that basis. (The
original poster had not at that time, IIRC, indicated that he had already
heard all or part of Levine's recording.) No more than that was intended by
me -- but it was obviously relevant, given the specific issue being
discussed.
> While I am indeed a self-professed "Boulez freak," I am not a blind
> idolater.
Here, you seem to be -- and not in any way that surprises me.
> For scathing indictments of numerous Boulez performances, search under my
> name
> at dejanews.
I'm not that interested.
> As for Spotts' book, which I do not know, it is not an account of the
> Boulez/Chereau Ring,
No, in fact, the Boulez/Chereau Ring is discussed in the historical context
of other Bayreuth Rings. That's what makes Spotts' comments of interest in
this regard.
> which means that he is under no obligation to exhaust
> this
> subject thoroughly. And he certainly does not, not in comparison to the
> many
> others who have spilt ink on this topic.
_Many_ others? Feel free to quote from them.
> Unless you've omitted further
> details
> that Spotts includes, he apparently does not mention specific details, and
> he
> does indeed atttribute remarks to the Bayreuth orchestra as if it were a
> single
> entity rather than an assemblage of individuals.
He does not; see above.
> Whether or not it
> received
> favorable reviews does not constitute a refutation of these facts.
More than that; Spotts' book met the editorial review standards of a noted
university press. I can assure you that those standards are quite high. If
you're saying that Spotts fabricated or misrepresented his evidence, that's
a serious charge, and we've yet to see your contrary evidence that would
support that charge.
> >But then, to review for Fanfare one has to have qualifications
> >and expertise similar to that which Henry Fogel possesses -- which I
> >suppose
> >is why Fogel's and Youngren's bylines appear in Fanfare, but not David
> >Gable's.
>
> I take it we should ignore your opinions, then, since they were not
> published
> in Fanfare.
In point of fact, there is no opinion of mine regarding Boulez's Ring
recording to ignore, as I have not expressed one. I have merely pointed out
that which is apparently chafing for a self-professed "Boulez freak" to
admit, which is that persons with qualifications that meet the relatively
high standards for publication in Fanfare magazine, and who can be shown not
to have an anti-Boulez bias (au contraire, in Youngren's case), can assess
certain aspects of Ring recordings -- in this case, supposed
"transparency" -- such that another conductor's recording is considered
superior -- by that reviewer, with his particular qualifications -- to
Boulez's Ring recording. That's all.
As for "ignoring" anyone's opinions -- I didn't indicate that anyone should
necessarily ignore yours. But people are certainly entitled to choose what
regard to give to your opinion or my opinion (had I expressed one in this
matter) or William Youngren's opinion, depending upon their assessment of
the qualifications of the person issuing the opinion. And of course,
virtually no qualifications are necessary for someone to say, "I listened to
this recording; I enjoyed it; it's my favourite recording of such-and-such a
piece," as the person is merely testifying to his or her personal reaction,
about which no-one is better qualified to speak -- hence the maxim, De
gustibus non disputandum est. At the same time, the reason why many people,
myself included, find it worthwhile to spend money to read the opinions of
Fanfare's reviewers is that they're issued by persons with particular
qualifications and areas of expertise. I wouldn't expect anyone to give
greater (or even equal) regard to my opinions on, say, Furtwaengler
recordings than they do to Henry Fogel's opinions on the same; why should
they? I don't find that particularly galling -- but then, I don't have an
ax to grind, one way or another, about Furtwaengler. I'm not sure that
self-professed "Boulez freaks" are similarly objective re Boulez.
Happy listening.
David Ashbridge
the highest. Many of those front desk men whilst wonderful players had
got into somewhat bad habits of not observing dynamics and speeds almost
invariably were on the slow side. There was the same sort of storm in a
teacup when Boulez conducted Parsifal ten years before with many saying
he rushed through the score in less than four hours and and as such
showed no feeling for the work. Utter balony as it turned out since
Boulez was four minutes SLOWER than Wagner had been in 1882. As for the
old Bayreuth brigade and that includes some of the musicians who liked
their Wagner slow and ponderous they simply got a rude shock when they
found there was perhaps another way to do the cycle. Nothing wrong with
that at all. There was some considerable reporting at the time that
"Boulez should be held responcible for at least some of the near
incompetent woodwind playing". This about a conductor who was by all
accounts from those in both the BBCSO and the NYPO the most formidable
conductor they had ever served with when it came to realising rhythms
needs to be treated with the at least some skepticism. More likely,
some of the older Bayreuth regulars simply could not accept different
tempos and instructions from what they had so often served up in the
past and in performance tried to hold things back. This was as it
turned out standard Berlin Phil practice for when they got a conductor
who they felt did not share their ideas on the music, they simply
ignored him and played it their way. Simon Rattle got something of the
same treatment in Vienna from the Philharmonic when some members had
problems with his interpretation of Mahler 9.
The Boulez Chereau cycle even in its early years was a triumph. OK it
was subject to revision, but that shows that both producer and conductor
were open enough to see they could improve their version. It would have
been far more problematic had they NOT changed things or tried
improvements. They of course would have had far more reason to complain
if they had been treated to the Space Age style Ring done at Covent
Garden in the middle 70s which was well sung but the staging with
everyone dressed in spacesuits and carrying laser guns reduced it to
farce. When the cycle was recorded Boulez had obvious got an orchestra
more in tune with his ideas rather than one half full of those not
willing to try. So if those players choose to stay away they could not
have been such a loss.
As to how 'modern' is the Chereau Ring, I would answer it is of its
time. I don't mean that asa cop-out answer but to mean it reflected the
climate of 1970s Europe with its uncertainities and supposed political
idealism, and in its protaryal of Siegfried as something of a bullyboy.
It was also in other ways very traditional in the way Chereau created
two giants, the sort of gowns the Gods wore, the old manual furnace in
Mime's house. The one thing it was not was dull. If twenty five years
this version of cycle is causing people to talk about it then it has
more than done its job. For those cycles that cannot be remembered five
one day after coming out of the theatre then perhaps the producer could
have done better.
David Ashbridge
was considerable annoyance in Germany that Boulez was conducting the
centenary Ring. Many of the old crones were still getting over Parsifal
being taken at its proper speed. As for Boulez "not having any feeling
for Wagner" I remember hearing him conduct Parsifal at the proms in the
early 70s and not having been blinkered by a lot of old fashioned Wagner
performances I found it flowed as a work far better than the recorded
versions I heard subsequently.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
> Your money, your choice; if you enjoy it, I'm happy for you.
Really??? You sound very happy to judge from your defensive comments
"Let me give you one brief example of how Levine (and
> DGG's [recording] engineers) enable you to hear just about everything in the
> score. Just before Mime's self-delighted question 'Behalt' ich Zwerg auch
> zweitens mein Haupt?" Wagner has the violas swoop upward to an A-flat above
> the treble clef staff and then play a descending eighth-note passage in
> unison with the two oboes and with English horn and bassoons an octave
> beneath. I had _never_ [my emphasis] even noticed this passage before, but
> this time I did because the special (and appropriately whiny) timbre of the
> violas _stood out so clearly_ [again, my emphasis] -- even though there is
> an accompaniment of pizzicato violins and pulsing horns."
Considering the Ring Cycle has over 14 hours (or over 16 if taken
slowly) it is not in the least surprising that other conductors should
find things or present things different to others. Its called
individuality. What a boring world it would be if everyone and
everything were the same.
> I bring these comments to your attention, because if in fact you value
> "transparency" in dense scores, you might in fact enjoy other conductors'
> Ring recordings more than that of Boulez. Simple as that. I would
> recommend both Levine's and Haitink's Ring recordings, in that regard.
Not one of Levine's better efforts - a big yawn as far as I was
concerned.
Haitink - just better forgotten. This was the most boring cycle I have
come across.
> Not at all. You really should take a look at Frederic Spotts' book; it has
> plenty of accounts of conductors and artistic directors who "stirred up ire
> in the faithful" at Bayreuth; but the only one where there's an indication
> that the orchestra felt that the conductor hadn't mastered the score is in
> the case of Boulez.
Treat this statement with caution. Germany feeling ran high at the time
and if this realy was the case it is doubtful whether Boulez would have
been invited back the following year, let alone for another three
years. After all Bayreuth still had a reputation to keep up. He was
also down to conduct Liszt Faust Symphony there in the middle 80s but a
urgent hospital treatment on his knee prevented it. This is hardly the
reaction of a place that would regard a potential conductor as inept.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
> Frankly, I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you;
Doesn't sound like it to me. It looks like you have some axe to grind.
> > I have trouble enough finding time to listen to the opera, let alone read
> books
> > about it.
>
> All right. But then you'll have to take it on faith as to whether raising
> the ire of the Bayreuth faithful was a singular accomplishment of Boulez and
> Chereau or not.
To a greater or lesser extent many of the things we do or take for
granted are taken on faith and after that we make our minds up. Frankly
it is irrelevant whether there was a rumpus or not. The recording was
done three years later.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
> David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011104190225...@mb-fn.aol.com...
>
> > Levine is one of the dullest Wagnerians imaginable, Haitink scarcely more
> > animated.
>
> I would hardly expect a different opinion from a self-professed "Boulez
> freak."
This sounds remarkably tetchy. It is not the opinion so much of a
Boulez freak but the simple fact Levine's Ring cycle is amongst the
deadest around. I happen to like Levine's work and some of his Mahler
is quite brilliant but his ring cycle is the opposite. The same for
Haitink. he has given some remarkable concerts in London, but his Ring
cycle was a severe disappointment.
>
> > > Meanwhile, we have the Bayreuth orchestra's
> > >assessment of Boulez's "mastery."
> >
> > We have nothing of the kind. We have anonymous quotations from some
> > disgruntled members of the Bayreuth orchestra from the summer of 1976.
>
> Which appear in a book that met the editorial review standards of the Yale
> University Press. Which appear in a book that won the Royal Philharmonic
> Society Award for the best music book of 1994. Which appear in a book that
> Edward Rothstein described in the New York Times as "a readable,
> authoritative account of the Wagner festival." Which appear in a book that
> Michael Tanner described in the New York Times Book Review as "reliable a
> guide [to Bayreuth] as we shall ever have." If you are charging that Spotts
> fabricated his evidence, or that in some way it misrepresents the Bayreuth
> orchestra's assessment of Boulez, I'm sure that I and others would like to
> see your evidence for that.
>
None of this really counts for that much. It sounds like an incident
blown hugely out of proportion. As I said earlier if there really was
such a problem, I can not see a major institution like bayreuth taking
such a risk and inviting him back for another year, so evidently, the
Bayreuth management took Boulez's side more than it took the side of
upset orchestral players.
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> One can naturally expect "Boulez freaks" to perceive enemies every time
> someone points out facts which indicate that there is not universal acclaim
> for their idol and his works. but the original poster, who
> indicated that he was interested in acquiring a "more traditional"
> presentation of the Ring, might want to take into account the opinions of
> the Bayreuth orchestra -- who are no slouches in this matter -- as to
> whether this particular version constitutes Boulez's Wagner (however worthy
> "Boulez freaks" might consider that to be) or Wagner's Wagner.
I am definitely NOT a "Boulez freak", I love Wagner's music,
and I've heard quite a few Rings. It's pretty much self-evident
to me that Boulez had mastered the score and presented an
interpretation that was well within the range of versions
that had come before. In fact, Boulez succeeded at making
it a "human" drama, which proves conclusively that his work
wasn't "bloodless". As for what constitutes "Wagner's Wagner",
I'll leave that to stuffed shirts. Phrases like that immediately
make me suspicious of the intentions of the person it. There
undoubtedly was controversy about the production when it was
first performed, but from what I hear, gossip and backbiting
isn't unknown in Bayreuth. The video is proof enough of Boulez's
success.
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> I bring these comments to your attention, because if in fact you value
> "transparency" in dense scores, you might in fact enjoy other conductors'
> Ring recordings more than that of Boulez. Simple as that. I would
> recommend both Levine's and Haitink's Ring recordings, in that regard.
You must have a different model of ears than I do... I haven't heard
Haitink's Ring, but I watched Levine's on TV and it bored me silly.
For someone who loves the Ring as much as I do, that is really hard
to accomplish!
D Krause
news:bigshot-0511...@206.225.65.162...
> I am definitely NOT a "Boulez freak",
I did not say you were, and I was in fact not referring to you when I used
that term.
> I love Wagner's music,
> and I've heard quite a few Rings. It's pretty much self-evident
> to me that Boulez had mastered the score and presented an
> interpretation that was well within the range of versions
> that had come before.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion in that regard, as are others;
when have I ever said otherwise?
> In fact, Boulez succeeded at making
> it a "human" drama, which proves conclusively that his work
> wasn't "bloodless".
In fact, your _opinion_ doesn't "prove" anything, as neither would mine, had
I expressed one about Boulez's Ring. But of course your opinion is
sufficient for you, as it should be.
> As for what constitutes "Wagner's Wagner",
> I'll leave that to stuffed shirts.
Excuse me, but your ignorance is showing. The original poster indicated
that he was at least somewhat concerned about whether the Boulez/Chereau
Ring was a traditionalist or modern staging; Boulez made no bones that his
and Chereau's intent was to break with traditions that can at least in part
be derived from the big RW himself. It's a valid topic of assessment --
your opinion, my opinion, anyone's opinion -- as to whether the results were
more Boulez's Wagner than Wagner's own.
> Phrases like that immediately
> make me suspicious of the intentions of the person it.
Suspect away -- but it seems you're more concerned about my intentions than
the actual subject of the discussion. Why is that?
>There
> undoubtedly was controversy about the production when it was
> first performed, but from what I hear, gossip and backbiting
> isn't unknown in Bayreuth.
Indeed so; those are a major part of Spotts' history of Bayreuth. But the
issue of a conductor's mastery of the score only arose with Boulez.
>The video is proof enough of Boulez's
> success.
If you enjoy it, great; mazel tov. But it's not "proof" of anything.
Happy listening.
D Krause
news:3BE6D27A...@brunel.ac.uk...
> This sounds remarkably tetchy. It is not the opinion so much of a
> Boulez freak but the simple fact Levine's Ring cycle is amongst the
> deadest around.
Excuse me, but you're confusing your _opinion_ with facts. And I'm supposed
to be "tetchy"?
> I happen to like Levine's work and some of his Mahler
> is quite brilliant but his ring cycle is the opposite. The same for
> Haitink. he has given some remarkable concerts in London, but his Ring
> cycle was a severe disappointment.
As they say, different strokes for different folks.
> It sounds like an incident
> blown hugely out of proportion.
From Spotts' account, it apparently did not seem so to the Bayreuth
orchestra at that time.
> As I said earlier if there really was
> such a problem, I can not see a major institution like bayreuth taking
> such a risk and inviting him back for another year,
I think you underestimate the degree and nature of musical politics that go
on at Bayreuth.
> so evidently, the
> Bayreuth management took Boulez's side more than it took the side of
> upset orchestral players.
Indeed; Spotts makes it absolutely clear that Wolfgang Wagner took Boulez's
side in this matter. Spotts also accurately reports that Wolfgang Wagner's
tenure at Bayreuth is not widely considered to be one of the more shining
periods in Bayreuth history.
Happy listening.
D Krause
> > Frankly, I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you;
>
> Doesn't sound like it to me. It looks like you have some axe to grind.
Frankly, judging from your barrage of nettled postings, it "looks" like
_you_ have some particular agenda in mind. What is it?
> To a greater or lesser extent many of the things we do or take for
> granted are taken on faith and after that we make our minds up. Frankly
> it is irrelevant whether there was a rumpus or not. The recording was
> done three years later.
Whether it's irrelevant or not would depend largely upon whether one feels
that Boulez's Ring recording reflects those matters that the original
Bayreuth orchestra for that version complained about. Frankly, opinions
differ in that regard.
Happy listening.
D Krause
> > Your money, your choice; if you enjoy it, I'm happy for you.
>
> Really??? You sound very happy to judge from your defensive comments
I am in fact defending myself from the charge of intending to "prove"
something which, by its very nature, is not subject to proof. If the charge
hadn't been made against by me by you and others, I wouldn't have to defend
myself against it, would I?
> Considering the Ring Cycle has over 14 hours (or over 16 if taken
> slowly) it is not in the least surprising that other conductors should
> find things or present things different to others. Its called
> individuality. What a boring world it would be if everyone and
> everything were the same.
You're misrepresenting the "transparency" issue that was in fact being
discussed, and to which my quote of Youngren's remarks was directed.
> Not one of Levine's better efforts - a big yawn as far as I was
> concerned.
> Haitink - just better forgotten. This was the most boring cycle I have
> come across.
De gustibus non disputandum est. But your opinions are not shared by at
least one well-qualified reviewer who also considers Boulez to be the
greatest Wagner conductor of our time. But then, he doesn't seem to have an
ax to grind.
> Germany feeling ran high at the time
> and if this realy was the case it is doubtful whether Boulez would have
> been invited back the following year, let alone for another three
> years.
You really should take a look at Spotts' book; it would give you a fuller
picture of musical politics at Bayreuth.
Happy listening.
D Krause
> I am not so sure about Spotts claiming the standards in Bayreuth are of
> the highest. Many of those front desk men whilst wonderful players had
> got into somewhat bad habits of not observing dynamics and speeds almost
> invariably were on the slow side.
Excuse me, but you're talking about "bad habits" that apparently met the
performance standards of Rudolf Kempe, among others. And you're saying that
you believe Boulez is a better Wagner conductor than Kempe? Well, that's
your opinion, of course -- and you're welcome to it.
>As for the
> old Bayreuth brigade and that includes some of the musicians who liked
> their Wagner slow and ponderous they simply got a rude shock when they
> found there was perhaps another way to do the cycle.
You are speaking utter crap. In fact, there had been "other way(s) to do
the the cycle" at Bayreuth before Boulez, including Boehm's 1965 Ring,
described by Wieland Wagner as "Wagner via Mozart." In fact, Spotts points
out that Wieland Wagner preferred what he termed "Latin" conductors,
including Andre Cluytens -- the charge that all Bayreuth productions were
ponderous and "Germanic" before Boulez showed up is a myth. And there was
considerable controversy about those productions as well; Bayreuth pretty
much thrives on controversy. But again, the only time when there was some
controversy about the conductor's mastery of the score was with Boulez.
Happy listening.
D Krause
news:bigshot-0511...@206.225.65.162...
> You must have a different model of ears than I do...
Yes, mine are the model with a brain in between them.
> I haven't heard
> Haitink's Ring, but I watched Levine's on TV and it bored me silly.
Different strokes.
> For someone who loves the Ring as much as I do, that is really hard
> to accomplish!
See above.
Happy listening.
Matthew B. Tepper
> Utter balony as it turned out since Boulez was four minutes SLOWER than
> Wagner had been in 1882.
Er, didn't Wagner himself conduct only part of one performance?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> I did not say you were, and I was in fact not referring to you when I used
> that term.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion in that regard, as are others;
> when have I ever said otherwise?
>
> In fact, your _opinion_ doesn't "prove" anything, as neither would mine, had
> I expressed one about Boulez's Ring. But of course your opinion is
> sufficient for you, as it should be.
These are all fine usenet responses, but they don't add up
to a hill of beans. My point was that one doesn't have to be
a "Boulez Freak" to like Boulez's Ring. You presented a few
quotes, which didn't jibe at all with what I saw and heard
in Boulez's Ring. No need for circular arguments or dodging
behind some quote in a book. If you personally didn't like
Boulez's Ring, step up to the plate and speak for yourself.
> The original poster indicated
> that he was at least somewhat concerned about whether the Boulez/Chereau
> Ring was a traditionalist or modern staging
Well, my experience is that traditional stagings are fine, but
even traditional ones omit many of Wagner's stage directions
(ie: Fricka riding in on a chariot drawn by rams, Grane the
horse, etc.) It's better to look for *effective* stagings, which
of the ones I've seen on video (Boulez, Levine and Barneboim)
is Boulez hands down.
> It's a valid topic of assessment -- your opinion, my opinion,
> anyone's opinion -- as to whether the results were
> more Boulez's Wagner than Wagner's own.
Staging would be more Chereau's department... and the strict
adherence to Wagner's staging died with his wife. (Thankfully!)
> Indeed so; those are a major part of Spotts' history of
> Bayreuth. But the issue of a conductor's mastery of the
> score only arose with Boulez.
And if you sit down and listen, you will see that he is wrong.
> >The video is proof enough of Boulez's success.
>
> If you enjoy it, great; mazel tov. But it's not "proof" of anything.
Boulez's Ring is pretty darn good! I'll leave it at that.
D Krause
> > I did not say you were, and I was in fact not referring to you when I
used
> > that term.
> >
> > You are certainly entitled to your opinion in that regard, as are
others;
> > when have I ever said otherwise?
> >
> > In fact, your _opinion_ doesn't "prove" anything, as neither would mine,
had
> > I expressed one about Boulez's Ring. But of course your opinion is
> > sufficient for you, as it should be.
>
> These are all fine usenet responses, but they don't add up
> to a hill of beans.
In this context, they do indeed add up to rather more than a hill of beans.
1) You appeared to have assumed that I was calling everyone who admired
Boulez's Ring recording, yourself included, a "Boulez freak;" shouldn't I
have assured you that such was not the case? 2) Do you disagree that we and
others are entitled to our opinions? Frankly, some people here do seem to
disagree with that position, so it's worthwhile to remind them of the "De
gustibus" maxim. 3) Do you disagree that your opinion about Boulez's Ring
recording, or my opinion of it, or William Youngren's opinion of it, does
not "prove" the absolute value of the recording? Some people here do seem
to disagree with that position; if you're not one of them, great.
> My point was that one doesn't have to be
> a "Boulez Freak" to like Boulez's Ring.
And my response to you was that I never called you a "Boulez freak." But
there is at least one person on this forum who does so describe himself --
that's what the word "self-professed" means -- and to my mind, many of his
comments are unsurprising, given that characterization of himself.
> You presented a few
> quotes, which didn't jibe at all with what I saw and heard
> in Boulez's Ring.
Fine; your opinion is, as I've maintained before, valid for you and worth
considering by others, if they choose to. But again, nothing is "proved" by
it, or my opinion, or William Youngren's.
> No need for circular arguments
_What_ "circular argument"? Do enlighten us.
> or dodging
> behind some quote in a book.
And how is quoting from a book "dodging"? I provided the information from
Spotts' history of Bayreuth because, as I said in my first posting in this
thread, I thought it might be of interest to the original poster. You're
free to disregard it; he's free to disregard it; believe me, it's no concern
of mine what you choose to do. But I did not present the Spotts quote as
some sort of "proof" about the value of Boulez's Ring recording -- though
it's certainly evidence about how other people have regarded Boulez's
approach to the music -- so your accusation of "dodging" really makes no
sense at all.
> If you personally didn't like
> Boulez's Ring, step up to the plate and speak for yourself.
It's been a long time since I've listened to it (on vinyl). That being the
case, I thought it reasonable not to offer an opinion about it at this time.
And so I didn't.
> Well, my experience is that traditional stagings are fine, but
> even traditional ones omit many of Wagner's stage directions
> (ie: Fricka riding in on a chariot drawn by rams, Grane the
> horse, etc.) It's better to look for *effective* stagings, which
> of the ones I've seen on video (Boulez, Levine and Barneboim)
> is Boulez hands down.
Not having seen all of those, I don't have an opinion on their relative
merits. Perhaps you should direct your comments to the original poster.
> Staging would be more Chereau's department... and the strict
> adherence to Wagner's staging died with his wife. (Thankfully!)
Actually, not so. Wagner's son Siegfried was responsible for significant
changes at Bayreuth well before his mother's death in 1930. Again, from
Spotts' history of Bayreuth: "It was with his production of Die
Meistersinger in 1911 that Siegfried [Wagner] achieved his great prewar
triumph. Virtually everyone admired it, and virtually everything about it
was admired ... Prominent experts well outside the Bayreuth claque credited
him with taking Bayreuth with one step into the contemporary theatrical
world." Later in Spotts, re the 1924 et seq Bayreuth Ring: "The Ring
underwent continuous, gradual revamping ... [Siegfried Wagner] even
_ignored_ [my emphasis] [his father's] stage directions in 1928 to provide
the Norns with their own setting -- an enormous fir tree against a wide sky.
More _novel_ [my emphasis] was Siegfried's use of lighting and optical
projection -- to give the impression of waves in the opening scene of
Rheingold, [etc.] ..." So much for "strict adherence". See how useful the
historical record can be, for clearing away myths and legends?
> And if you sit down and listen, you will see that he [Spotts] is wrong.
And if you will actually sit down and read the postings to which you are
reacting, you will see that Spotts did not make the charge to which you are
objecting. He is reporting the charge made by others, as he also reported,
in an even-handed way, the contemporary good reviews that Boulez's Ring
received. So "wrong" doesn't apply.
> > >The video is proof enough of Boulez's success.
> >
> > If you enjoy it, great; mazel tov. But it's not "proof" of anything.
>
> Boulez's Ring is pretty darn good! I'll leave it at that.
Fine; enjoy it in good health; I'm happy for you.
Happy listening.
David7Gable
>side in this matter.
Let's not forget that it was Wieland who first brought Boulez to Bayreuth and
first asked Boulez do to do the Ring with him. It should also be said that the
one director Boulez made it clear he would NOT work with on a Ring cycle was
Wolfgang. His opinion of Wolfgang's abilities in that capacity was not high.
Given this, Wolfgang's behavior appears quite magnanimous.
Mr. Krause should not rely on the opinion of only one writer, Spotts, in
discussing this whole episode given the large bibliography on the subject of
the Boulez/Chereau Ring.
-david gable
David7Gable
>that Boulez's Ring recording reflects those matters that the original
>Bayreuth orchestra for that version complained about.
There you go again . . . when what you mean is "some members of the Bayreuth
orchestra" and not "the Bayreuth orchestra."
-david gable
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
> news:bigshot-0511...@206.225.65.162...
>
> > You must have a different model of ears than I do...
>
> Yes, mine are the model with a brain in between them.
Hey! I have one of those too! What a coincidence...
> Different strokes.
> See above.
Uh-huh.
Stephen W. Worth
> I am in fact defending myself from the charge of intending to "prove"
> something which, by its very nature, is not subject to proof.
A couple of posts back, you commented that nothing I said proved
anything. Why would you criticize my comments for the same thing
you are defending yourself against? If nothing can be proved one
way or the other, why bother to even respond?
> But your opinions are not shared by at least one well-qualified
> reviewer who also considers Boulez to be the greatest Wagner
> conductor of our time. But then, he doesn't seem to have an
> ax to grind.
To quote a great old blues song... "One Monkey Don't Make No Show!"
David7Gable
>issue of a conductor's mastery of the score only arose with Boulez.
You don't seem to see that this statement depends on a very special use of the
word "mastery." Your statement implies that Boulez was in some sense literally
incompetent to conduct the score. That statement is absolutely preposterous.
He never would have been invited to Bayreuth had he been incompetent or if
Wieland and Wolfgang had not had an extremely high opinion of his competence.
Nor would Boulez have been so arrogant or foolish as to show up in Bayreuth for
the centennial Ring unprepared. What you really mean is that you dislike his
interpretation and agree with those members of the 1976 Bayreuth Festival
Orchestra who found his interpretation a "betrayal" of certain performance
traditions. Your statement also ignores the political background of resistance
to Boulez on the part of some members of the orchestra, a resistance that
plugged in the moment Wolfgang announced a French team for the centennial Ring.
-david gable
Stephen W. Worth
> Indeed; Spotts makes it absolutely clear that Wolfgang Wagner took Boulez's
> side in this matter. Spotts also accurately reports that Wolfgang Wagner's
> tenure at Bayreuth is not widely considered to be one of the more shining
> periods in Bayreuth history.
These two facts don't seem to be necessarily related to me...
Are you saying that Wolfgang Wagner is responsible for the quality
of Boulez's conducting? Wouldn't Wolfgang Wagner be more responsible
for the style of staging (modified Wieland) than the conducting of
a specific opera or cycle?
And also, how is it "proven" that Wolfgang Wagner's tenure wasn't
shining? Isn't that just a matter of opinion too?
D Krause
> Let's not forget that it was Wieland who first brought Boulez to Bayreuth
and
> first asked Boulez do to do the Ring with him. It should also be said
that the
> one director Boulez made it clear he would NOT work with on a Ring cycle
was
> Wolfgang. His opinion of Wolfgang's abilities in that capacity was not
high.
> Given this, Wolfgang's behavior appears quite magnanimous.
Indeed. Wolfgang Wagner was a complicated individual, to say the least.
> Mr. Krause should not rely on the opinion of only one writer, Spotts, in
> discussing this whole episode given the large bibliography on the subject
of
> the Boulez/Chereau Ring.
Well, let's see; there's Joachim Bergfeld's Ich wollte Wagner von Podest
holen; Elisabeth Bouillon's Le Ring a Bayreuth: La Tetralogie du Centenaire;
Boulez and Chereau's own Histoire d'un Ring; Jean-Jacques Nattiez's
Tetralogies Wagner, Boulez, Chereau: Essai sur l'infidelite -- and guess
what? Those are all cited in the bibliography of Spotts' book. Would David
Gable care to cite from any of those other than Boulez and Chereau's book,
and indicate if and how they contradict Spotts' account?
Happy listening.
D Krause
Yes, and I suppose if I said that on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the
United States, you'd believe that I was saying that the entire population of
Japan had been in planes above Pearl Harbor that day. Get a grip on common
English usage, David, and quit pointlessly trying to inflate a statement
that I've previously and repeatedly clarified for you into some grievance on
which you feel you can win some points against me. And, according to the
account that is being discussed here, it wasn't the trivialized "some"
members of the orchestra who made that complaint against your hero, but
"most" -- there you go again, indeed.
Happy listening.
D Krause
> > Indeed; Spotts makes it absolutely clear that Wolfgang Wagner took
Boulez's
> > side in this matter. Spotts also accurately reports that Wolfgang
Wagner's
> > tenure at Bayreuth is not widely considered to be one of the more
shining
> > periods in Bayreuth history.
>
> These two facts don't seem to be necessarily related to me...
>
> Are you saying that Wolfgang Wagner is responsible for the quality
> of Boulez's conducting?
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that merely because a
particular decision was made by a particular grandson of Richard Wagner --
as in Wolfgang Wagner's sticking by Boulez -- that does not mean that it was
necessarily a decision that was widely admired and applauded by others; less
so, in fact, in the case of decisions by Wolfgang Wagner, as his tenure at
Bayreuth is generally not as well-regarded as that of, say, his brother
Wieland. Wolfgang brought in Goetz Friedrich in 1972 to do Tannhauser, and
that production was widely disparaged, even by its conductor Erich
Leinsdorf, who refused to come back the following year for it. So let's
just say that Wolfgang Wagner had a controversial record at Bayreuth, and to
stamp "Wolfgang Wagner Approved!" on Boulez's brow is not quite the musical
equivalent of "USDA Prime."
> And also, how is it "proven" that Wolfgang Wagner's tenure wasn't
> shining? Isn't that just a matter of opinion too?
Are those little quote marks supposed to indicate that I said it was so
"proven"? Because in fact, I didn't say so, did I? You can take whatever
opinion you want about the quality of Bayreuth productions during Wolfgang
Wagner's tenure -- you're as entitled to your opinion as Leinsdorf was to
his. But realistically speaking, you're unlikely to find a well-regarded
account of Bayreuth's history that doesn't indicate that quite a few other
people held some pretty scathing opinions about Wolfgang Wagner's artistic
decisions, and in general to a greater degree and in a larger number than
his brother Wieland's decisions were regarded.
Happy listening.
D Krause
> >But the
> >issue of a conductor's mastery of the score only arose with Boulez.
>
> You don't seem to see that this statement depends on a very special use of
the
> word "mastery."
On the contrary; I understand that perfectly well (perhaps, it seems, more
than you do), which is why I thought the comments recorded in Spotts' book
were of such interest, coming as they did from persons who were not only
there (as neither I nor, I believe, you were) but who, IMO and I believe in
many others' opinions, were uniquely qualified to judge such "mastery."
>Your statement
Not mine; it was, as Spotts reported, that of most of the orchestra members.
> implies that Boulez was in some sense literally
> incompetent to conduct the score.
Wrong; it does not do so, and your saying this indicates precisely that it
is _you_ who do not understand the word being discussed. The complaint was
not that Boulez was "incompetent" to conduct the score, but had not
"mastered" it to a level suitable for performance at Bayreuth. There's a
difference.
> That statement is absolutely preposterous.
Apparently not, unless you have contrary evidence that Spotts fabricated or
misrepresented his evidence in this regard.
> He never would have been invited to Bayreuth had he been incompetent
Wrong; disregarding your abusive equation of "competence" with "mastery,"
there have been other conductors invited to Bayreuth, who have turned out
disappointing in one way or another. Wolfgang Wagner himself said after the
1983 Ring, that "Peter Hall and Georg Solti left us with a ruin." Sometimes
things work out, sometimes they don't; that's not just Bayreuth, but
reality.
> or if
> Wieland and Wolfgang had not had an extremely high opinion of his
competence.
See above.
> Nor would Boulez have been so arrogant or foolish as to show up in
Bayreuth for
> the centennial Ring unprepared.
Not "unprepared," because that's an issue of competency, not mastery.
There's a difference.
> What you really mean is that you dislike his
> interpretation and agree with those members of the 1976 Bayreuth Festival
> Orchestra who found his interpretation a "betrayal" of certain performance
> traditions.
Wrong; performance traditions had been "betrayed" before at Bayreuth, and
controversially so, but this issue of a conductor's mastery of the score had
not been so raised by orchestra members. But let's move on. I'm amazed
that you can rub your crystal ball and read my mind and discern that I
dislike Boulez's interpretation of the Ring, when I had not yet stated that
to be the case. If the old vaudeville circuit still existed, I would advise
you to take your mind-reading act on the road, except for one small thing --
you're wrong. It's been so long since I've heard Boulez's Ring recording,
that as I've indicated elsewhere in this discussion, I really don't have any
opinion on it at all at the moment. (Not likely to in the near future,
either; it's not a priority for me.) Tell you what: I'm looking at a
common playing card; if you can tell me which card it is, I'll accept that
you have some miraculous ability to tell what other persons' likes and
dislikes are, before they state them. If you can't tell me what card it is,
you owe me an apology.
> Your statement also ignores the political background of resistance
> to Boulez on the part of some members of the orchestra, a resistance that
> plugged in the moment Wolfgang announced a French team for the centennial
Ring.
And now you owe the centenary Ring orchestra members an apology, for
accusing them of a reactionary chauvinism, merely because you disagree with
their opinions.
Happy listening.
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> But realistically speaking, you're unlikely to find a well-regarded
> account of Bayreuth's history that doesn't indicate that quite a few other
> people held some pretty scathing opinions about Wolfgang Wagner's artistic
> decisions, and in general to a greater degree and in a larger number than
> his brother Wieland's decisions were regarded.
When you say artistic decisions, do you mean musical decisions or
staging decisions? Because those are two entirely different things.
Being a sci-fi writer yourself, do you prefer the "outer space"
Ring's staging to more traditional or politically oriented ones?
Stephen W. Worth
> It's been so long since I've heard Boulez's Ring recording,
> that as I've indicated elsewhere in this discussion, I really
> don't have any opinion on it at all at the moment.
Whose opinion do you have then?
Stephen W. Worth
<rese...@altavista.net> wrote:
> David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011105202840...@mb-fb.aol.com...
>
> > There you go again . . . when what you mean is "some members of
> > the Bayreuth orchestra" and not "the Bayreuth orchestra."
>
> Yes, and I suppose if I said that on December 7, 1941, Japan
> attacked the United States, you'd believe that I was saying
> that the entire population of Japan had been in planes above
> Pearl Harbor that day.
The bomber pilots at Pearl Harbor were official representatives
of the people of Japan. Are you saying that the few orchestra
members that had problems with Boulez's approach represented
the orchestra as a whole?
D Krause
> When you say artistic decisions, do you mean musical decisions or
> staging decisions? Because those are two entirely different things.
True; I was using "artistic" to refer to all of Wolfgang Wagner's decisions
that resulted in what was seen and heard inside the Bayreuth Festspielhaus,
rather than those decisions that didn't have that impact.
> Being a sci-fi writer yourself, do you prefer the "outer space"
> Ring's staging to more traditional or politically oriented ones?
I would agree with your previous statement that what counts is the
effectiveness of the staging, whether it's modern or traditional. Though
actually I have something of a taste for modern stagings; I haven't seen the
video of Chereau's staging of the Ring, but the still photos in Spotts'
book, especially of the Rheingold Act I "hydro-electric dam", make it look
interesting.
Happy listening.
Margaret Mikulska
D Krause wrote:
> DBut then, to review for Fanfare one has to have qualifications
> and expertise similar to that which Henry Fogel possesses -- which I suppose
> is why Fogel's and Youngren's bylines appear in Fanfare, but not David
> Gable's.
While I respect Henry's knowledge of recordings, I must say that this is
one of the most hilarious statements made in this group in a very long
time. There was, for instance, a person who used to pollute this group
with idiotic, ignorant, and incredibly poorly amd pretentiously written
reviews (Bulwer-Lytton would kill to be able to write such trash) who
became a regular contributor to Fanfare. I can't speak for David, but
why in the hell would a serious musicologist want to have his name
printed next to such trash? Besides, as one can see from the vast
majority of record reviews, the knowledge of music is superflous in this
business, and it may indeed get in the way. It would be a waste of
anybody's serious knowledge of and expertise in music to use them to
write reviews of the currently popular kind.
-Margaret
D Krause
> > It's been so long since I've heard Boulez's Ring recording,
> > that as I've indicated elsewhere in this discussion, I really
> > don't have any opinion on it at all at the moment.
I've _heard_ (or read, actually) several persons' opinions. Yours might
more likely influence me to take another listen to Boulez's Ring, rather
than the opinion of a self-professed "Boulez freak."
Happy listening.
D Krause
news:bigshot-0511...@206.225.65.148...
> The bomber pilots at Pearl Harbor were official representatives
> of the people of Japan. Are you saying that the few orchestra
> members that had problems with Boulez's approach represented
> the orchestra as a whole?
It wasn't a "few," according to Spotts' account; it was "most." And all
I've said is that that is what Spotts reports in his book, and I've
clarified that several times now, and I don't see the point of ignoring
those clarifications in an apparent attempt to inflate some kind of charge
against me, re something I did not in fact say. That's all.
Happy listening.
D Krause
news:3BE796A1...@silvertone.princeton.edu...
[some amazingly ill-tempered vitriol]
IMO, the worth of Ms. Mikulska's comments is indicated by her gratuitous
backhanded swipe at Bulwer-Lytton, who was in fact a worthy and important
Victorian novelist, whose reputation has been clouded in the minds of the
ignorant by exactly such envious, pretentious academic twits as Ms.
Mikulska, who wouldn't have been fit to carry Bulwer-Lytton's pencil case.
That being so, why should I or anyone else care about her opinion of
reviewers such as Walter Simmons, Adrian Corleonis, Paul Snook et al, whose
bylines appear in Fanfare?
Happy listening, Maggie -- when you get a clue.
samir golescu
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Stephen W. Worth wrote:
> > Yes, and I suppose if I said that on December 7, 1941, Japan
> > attacked the United States, you'd believe that I was saying
> > that the entire population of Japan had been in planes above
> > Pearl Harbor that day.
>
> The bomber pilots at Pearl Harbor were official representatives
> of the people of Japan.
I never knew Japanese bombers were freely elected by the bombers of Japan.
> Are you saying that the few orchestra
> members that had problems with Boulez's approach represented
> the orchestra as a whole?
If there were a Bayreuth union, and they were elected as union's
representatives, would you have said they were "official representatives
of the orchestra"?
N.B. [important]: I don't care too much for Boulez's Wagner (which, some,
I sampled -- I don't possess any) and even less for Levine's (I've
endured through the whole Walkyria -- oy-vey!). I am just having fun at
the sight of the course the discussion has taken.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, samir golescu wrote:
> > > Yes, and I suppose if I said that on December 7, 1941, Japan
> > > attacked the United States, you'd believe that I was saying
> > > that the entire population of Japan had been in planes above
> > > Pearl Harbor that day.
> >
> > The bomber pilots at Pearl Harbor were official representatives
> > of the people of Japan.
>
> I never knew Japanese bombers were freely elected by the bombers of Japan.
*******
*people*
Stephen W. Worth
samir golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> N.B. [important]: I don't care too much for Boulez's Wagner (which, some,
> I sampled -- I don't possess any) and even less for Levine's (I've
> endured through the whole Walkyria -- oy-vey!). I am just having fun at
> the sight of the course the discussion has taken.
If you aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong!
D Krause
> If you aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong!
Then I must be doing it right.
Happy listening.
David7Gable
>Gable care to cite from any of those other than Boulez and Chereau's book,
>and indicate if and how they contradict Spotts' account?
They all contradict what you say that Spotts claims. (Again, I have not seen
Spotts's book.) None of the books you cite supports the claim that Boulez was
either incompetent to conduct the Ring when he showed up in Bayreuth in the
summer of 1976 or unprepared, which is your fundamental damning (and absurd)
claim. (Even if some members of the orchestra made this claim, it is clear
that they were deliberately resorting to rather vicious rhetorical overkill
because they disliked his INTERPRETATION, not because Boulez is incompetent or
came unprepared. They are, of course, entitled to their rhetoric. You and
Spotts are foolish to take it at face value.) Furthermore, all of the books
you cite give specifics as to what were the disagreements between Boulez and
some members of the orchestra during the first summer of the Boulez Ring.
(Actually, I am not familiar with Bergfeld's book.) I have hesitated to get
into specifics myself, since it has been quite a while since I followed this
tempest in a teapot at close range. But I will mention one specific,
regrettably from--wouldn't you know it?--the one Ring opera that I don't have
handy in a published score at the moment, Rheingold. At some point during the
gods' crossing of the rainbow bridge into Valhalla, Wagner requests a very soft
dynamic, a pianissimo I believe. It was apparently Bayreuth tradition for the
orchestra to blast away at full volume in this spot. Boulez wouldn't let them.
This is only one example of Boulez's supposed extreme lack of feeling for
Wagner's music. In fact, in an interview somewhere, and please don't ask me to
cite it, Boulez is quite eloquent about what he felt Wagner's programmatic and
dramatic intent was in this very passage and why he preferred Wagner's dynamic
to Bayreuth tradition in this instance. Spotts should have done more than list
the books he mentions in his bibliography. He should have consulted them.
-david gable
David7Gable
>English usage, David, and quit pointlessly trying to inflate a statement
>that I've previously and repeatedly clarified for you
Then why do you keep claiming "the Bayreuth orchestra" felt that Boulez was
incompetent? Some very disgruntled members certainly were not happy with
Boulez in 1976, that is certain. That is not the same thing at all as "the
Bayreuth orchestra."
-david gable
David7Gable
>many others' opinions, were uniquely qualified to judge such "mastery."
But others who were uniquely qualified to judge Boulez's mastery were also
there and do not agree with this estimate. If we broaden this group to those
who worked intimately on operatic productions with Boulez, including
productions of Wagner, the group would include Wieland Wagner. Wieland was
more than convinced of Boulez's mastery. Indeed, he invited Boulez to
collaborate on a production of the Ring with him. Had Wieland been alive,
there would not have been a French centenary Ring, and the "scandale" would
have been muted or non-existent.
-david gable
David7Gable
>I've _heard_ (or read, actually) several persons' opinions. Yours might
>more likely influence me to take another listen to Boulez's Ring, rather
>than the opinion of a self-professed "Boulez freak."
Only those who are not enthusiastic about a given topic are reliable judges of
that topic? I guess you wouldn't appreciate Baudelaire's remark about "the
passion necessary for a critic to be exact." In fact, virtually every writer
on the arts who is an authority on a given writer, painter, or composer became
an authority as a consequence of the extraordinary enthusiasm he or she felt
toward the art of that writer, painter, or composer. (Nor is this generality
nullified by the instances of writers who are fascinated by a topic that at
another level repulses them. Historians of Nazism and Slavery, for example,
may be fascinated by their topics without being enthusiastic about Nazism or
slavery per se.) If I want to read about Picasso, I am going to turn to
William Rubin or John Richardson, because they've spent their lives exploring
their enthusiasm. I wonder if you would appreciate the wisdom of a statement
Charles Rosen once made about the musical canon, that the canon "is not decided
by majority opinion but by enthusiasm and passion. A work that ten people love
passionately is more important than one that ten thousand people do not mind
hearing." The passions that the Boulez/Chereau Ring excited suggest that
something interesting was going on, and it was a lot more than a mere blunder:
that an incompetent conductor was brought in to conduct the centennial
production of the Ring. Boulez excited resistance not because of his
incompetence but because of his competence in imposing his vision of the piece.
-david gable
-david gable
Margaret Mikulska
Ah, it *is* a dark and stormy night here at r.m.c.r....
-Margaret
D Krause wrote:
[An amusing, impassionate defense of Bulwer-Lytton, suffice it to say.]
Clovis Lark
> -david gable
It is a well known fact that the Bayreuth brass were upset at Boulez'
insistence that they observe Wagner's clearly written dynamics and not
overwhelm the other choirs in the orchestra as well as the singers. They
felt that they were being given the "hand". They may well have felt
resentment for this, but they were, based upon the clearly recorded
results, quite wrong. The accusation of incompetence is, as usual,
specious. Boulez never ever approached any project without total
preparation. I can vouch for his abilities in Wagner as early as a decade
prior to the Ring as documented in a video of Tristan made during a
Japanese performance using the Bayreuth cast and staging. The box
indicates a named Japanese orchestra, but Boulez told me this was
essentially a pickup ensemble whose members had NEVER played an opera. He
told me of the difficulties and meticulous preparation necessary to get
them on the right page. The video confirms the excellence of the result.
35 years later, Boulez approached Pelleas with the Cleveland Orchestra, a
non opera orchestra, with the same trepidation and worries.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
> Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
> news:bigshot-0511...@206.225.65.162...
>
> > You must have a different model of ears than I do...
>
> Yes, mine are the model with a brain in between them.
>
But does it require a key to wind them up?
Clovis Lark
> Happy listening.
At this point, we might as well have names. Even in Wagner, the brass
hardly constitute most.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
> > I happen to like Levine's work and some of his Mahler
> > is quite brilliant but his ring cycle is the opposite. The same for
> > Haitink. he has given some remarkable concerts in London, but his Ring
> > cycle was a severe disappointment.
>
> As they say, different strokes for different folks.
Fine. So why can't you leave it at that instead of trying to equate a
question about a recording with an incident three years earlier which
involved different people?
> I think you underestimate the degree and nature of musical politics that go
> on at Bayreuth.
EVERY organisation is riddled with internal politics to a greater or
lesser extent. Its a normal part of anthropology and society. I don't
see why Bayreuth has to be made such a special case since for the
majority of us outside of the place we could not care less about the
internal infighting.
Spotts also accurately reports that Wolfgang Wagner's
> tenure at Bayreuth is not widely considered to be one of the more shining
> periods in Bayreuth history.
>
Name one organisation that has an unbroken and unparrelled record of
achievement. If such a place existed I feel we should all be told about
it.
> Happy listening.
So long as it not the Boulez Ring???
David Ashbridge
Steven Chung wrote:
>
> In article <3BE6CCBE...@brunel.ac.uk>,
> David Ashbridge <mus...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> # Many of the old crones were still getting over Parsifal
> # being taken at its proper speed.
>
> Well, this statement really establishes your credibility.
>
> S.
Well whatever you think of that, one inescapeable fact about
interpretation in music is that if the piece gets dragged out or
squashed up significantly (yes I know this open to interpretation as
well!) there comes a point where the original gets lost behind the
intrepretation. Knabbersbusch is just one example of conductors who
delivered a good performances of Parsifal in the late 50s early 60s but
considering a lot of Parsifal is SLOW music anyway, slowing it down
further still particularly when it adds on between 40-60 mins clearly
cannot be giving that much consideration to Wagner's wishes as opposed
to the wishes of the conductor.
Simon Roberts
wrote:
>
>Well whatever you think of that, one inescapeable fact about
>interpretation in music is that if the piece gets dragged out or
>squashed up significantly (yes I know this open to interpretation as
>well!) there comes a point where the original gets lost behind the
>intrepretation.
I think I know what you mean, but is this the realm of "inescapable fact"?
Is it ever possible to perceive "the original" (assuming we can agree what
that is) without interpretation?
Knabbersbusch is just one example of conductors who
>delivered a good performances of Parsifal in the late 50s early 60s but
>considering a lot of Parsifal is SLOW music anyway, slowing it down
>further still particularly when it adds on between 40-60 mins clearly
>cannot be giving that much consideration to Wagner's wishes as opposed
>to the wishes of the conductor.
A couple of points. First, Wagner never heard the sort of performance
that Knappertsbusch conjured up, so it's hard to say for sure that he had
any wishes with regard to it one way or another. For all we know he might
have been won over by (some) slow performances of his music. Second, why
put it in terms of the conductor's "wishes"? Maybe slow conductors feel
compelled to use the tempi they do because that's what their understanding
of the music requires, in which case "wish" doesn't really seem the right
concept, does it (not do related notions of self-indulgence, etc.)?
Simon
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
>
> Excuse me, but you're talking about "bad habits" that apparently met the
> performance standards of Rudolf Kempe, among others. And you're saying that
> you believe Boulez is a better Wagner conductor than Kempe? Well, that's
> your opinion, of course -- and you're welcome to it.
>
I NEVER made any such comparisons of the sort. What is above is your
opinion alone and you are welcome to keep it.
> >As for the
> > old Bayreuth brigade and that includes some of the musicians who liked
> > their Wagner slow and ponderous they simply got a rude shock when they
> > found there was perhaps another way to do the cycle.
>
> You are speaking utter crap.
If that were the case I will withdraw the comment. But the sad fact is
many orchestral players get ingrained into ways of playing something and
do not change easily and resist attempts to change it. The Berlin Phil.
is a case in point. If they came across a conductor who they felt was
not interpreting things as they felt correct, they simply ignored the
conductor and played it their way. As I said in an earlier post, Simon
Rattle had this situation in Vienna some years ago. I have also been
faced with the same situation when doing standard repertoire. Some
players become incredibly set in their ways. That is not to say they
are not good players, but it does mean to say they do not adapt very
easily to different approaches to things they have played many times.
Bayreuth pretty
> much thrives on controversy. But again, the only time when there was some
> controversy about the conductor's mastery of the score was with Boulez.
>
In this case it should be to Bayreuth's credit it got another
controversy rather than a boring event which went fine.
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
> David Ashbridge <mus...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3BE6D06C...@brunel.ac.uk...
>
> > > Frankly, I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you;
> >
> > Doesn't sound like it to me. It looks like you have some axe to grind.
>
> Frankly, judging from your barrage of nettled postings, it "looks" like
> _you_ have some particular agenda in mind. What is it?
>
I don't. It is just the points I relied to were spread out over several
listings
David Ashbridge
D Krause wrote:
>
It's been so long since I've heard Boulez's Ring recording,
> that as I've indicated elsewhere in this discussion, I really don't have any
> opinion on it at all at the moment.
Now he tells us. So would you like to try again to explain why you are
attempting to blacken a recording done three years after an incident
irrelevant to that recording. If you can't remember the merits and
defects of the recording in question (as opposed to irrelevant
antedotes) it does draw into question your competence to talk upon the
whole subject in the way you have.
D Krause
> >I've _heard_ (or read, actually) several persons' opinions. Yours might
> >more likely influence me to take another listen to Boulez's Ring, rather
> >than the opinion of a self-professed "Boulez freak."
>
> Only those who are not enthusiastic about a given topic are reliable
judges of
> that topic?
I did not say that. For in fact, I did not detect any lack of enthusiasm on
Mr. Worth's part about either Boulez's Ring recording or Wagner's Ring in
general -- rather the opposite, in fact. (Perhaps Mr. Worth would care to
chime in, and let us know whether David Gable's characterization of him as
"not enthusiastic" on either of these matters is correct.) What I did
detect, and which made his comments interesting to me, is the lack of
exactly that blind idolatry which you, a self-professed "Boulez freak"
display toward the object of your passions. (Which is why, I take it, Mr.
Worth went to such pains to point out that he was not a "Boulez freak.") I
similarly disregard the comments of self-professed "Charlotte Church freaks"
about the supposedly unimpeachable wonderfulness of the object of their
passions -- a reasonable position on my part, I believe, but not the one
that you would foolishly and erroneously characterize it as being.
>I guess you wouldn't appreciate Baudelaire's remark about "the
> passion necessary for a critic to be exact."
Neither passion or exactitude is at issue. But blindness is.
> In fact, virtually every writer
> on the arts who is an authority on a given writer, painter, or composer
became
> an authority as a consequence of the extraordinary enthusiasm he or she
felt
> toward the art of that writer, painter, or composer.
Indeed. And so I found of interest the comments of one critic who stated
that he felt Boulez to be the greatest Wagner conductor of our time, but was
also objective enough -- fair-minded, even -- to point out aspects of
another conductor's Ring recording which he felt improved upon that of
Boulez's recording. But that critic not only displayed enthusiasm, a
quality with which I have no quarrel, but also the objectivity and
fair-mindedness which a self-professed "Boulez freak" does not seem to
display. His comments are thus of more interest to me (as were also Mr.
Worth's) than yours. Simple as that.
> (Nor is this generality
> nullified by the instances of writers who are fascinated by a topic that
at
> another level repulses them. Historians of Nazism and Slavery, for
example,
> may be fascinated by their topics without being enthusiastic about Nazism
or
> slavery per se.)
Yes, but those are often fair-minded and objective historians with a
fascination for their topic -- and not, say, "Nazism freaks," i.e. blind
idolators of Adolf Hitler. Is that not obvious to you?
> If I want to read about Picasso, I am going to turn to
> William Rubin or John Richardson, because they've spent their lives
exploring
> their enthusiasm.
Yes, and if I wish to read about Nazism -- I actually have a large
collection on the subject -- I'm not going to turn to the Stormfront.org
website and read about it from blindly idolatrous "Nazi freaks." Those
persons' "enthusiasm" is no more a virtue than that which you appear to show
for your particular interests.
> I wonder if you would appreciate the wisdom of a statement
> Charles Rosen once made about the musical canon, that the canon "is not
decided
> by majority opinion but by enthusiasm and passion. A work that ten people
love
> passionately is more important than one that ten thousand people do not
mind
> hearing."
I wonder if you would appreciate that your mentor Rosen's statement is utter
crap, and would be regarded so by any reasonable person. If "enthusiasm" is
the deciding factor, then the enthusiasm of "Nazi freaks" would make MEIN
KAMPF an accepted part of the canon of Western political thought. It
doesn't and it isn't, no matter how enthusiastic its proponents might be. I
realize that you have yet to get up from your knees in front of the great
Rosen, but this statement of his, whatever the value of his other writing
might be, is, as I said, crap. And frankly, your promulgating of this
statement, and your apparent belief in it, puts you in a ridiculous
position. There are at this moment many more people who "love passionately"
Charlotte Church's latest recording than any recording of Boulez's music --
therefore, according to you and Rosen, Charlotte Church's music is "more
important" than Boulez's. Do you enjoy residing in the corner into which
you've painted yourself?
> The passions that the Boulez/Chereau Ring excited suggest that
> something interesting was going on, and it was a lot more than a mere
blunder:
> that an incompetent conductor was brought in to conduct the centennial
> production of the Ring.
And again, you foolishly and polemically attempt to equate competency with
mastery, the distinction between which being that which the Bayreuth
orchestra musicians were reportedly concerned about. There's a difference.
> Boulez excited resistance not because of his
> incompetence but because of his competence in imposing his vision of the
piece.
Really? So now you can read those persons' minds at this distance in time,
as well as you can supposedly read mine? Or do you have some other source
for that statement?
Happy listening.